The Israel Defense Forces, more than any other organization, represents Israeli society. It is a melting pot that includes soldiers from all ethnic, religious and racial backgrounds, men and women, but even this human collage always has something new. For example, Israel's first female Nigerian officer, Lieutenant Toby Cohen, 21, who was born in Nigeria to a Nigerian mother and Israeli father. Her parents and 8-year-old sister live in the town of Kanu in northern Nigeria, while she immigrated to Israel on her own at the age of 17. Cohen serves in the Homefront Command.

In truth, however, it does not really matter how diverse Israel is or how liberal it is, the western-left will always spit poison at it because it is the lone, sole Jewish country. The Arabs learned long ago that whatever hate-filled and false accusations that they fling at the Jews in Israel, those accusations will be eagerly gobbled up by westerners who pride themselves on "social justice" and "anti-racism."

This is particularly true of progressive-left Jews when they believe that the Jews of Israel are illegally occupying Judea. If you start from the position that Jews are "illegally occupying the West Bank" then you have no case. It does not matter if Israelis discover a cure for cancer, send the first lesbian to Mars, or irrigate the entirety of Africa.

If those Jews have stolen Arab land in Judea - as so many diaspora Jews seem to believe - then Israel deserves every bit of contempt so joyously dished out by her Arab-Muslim and progressive-left tormentors. However, if we acknowledge the historical truth that the land from the River to the Sea is the homeland of the Jewish people, and that the Jewish people are the indigenous people of that land - which we are - then the Muslims and their progressive-left friends have no case.

Cognitive War

Those of us who care about the Jewish people and, therefore, about the well-being of the Jewish State of Israel, are engaged, against our will, in a cognitive / propaganda aggression launched by the Arabs since, at least, 1967. They cannot beat the Jews with conventional warfare because - despite the fact that they outnumber us by a factor of 60 or 70 to 1 in the region - they are too weak. This weakness, of course, is not essential, but self-inflicted. If they insist on gazing upon the seventh-century mirage of Muhammad then their culture and abilities will reflect that interest.

If they would, instead, gaze upon Isaac Newton, and all that implies, their chances of slaughtering us would be greatly enhanced.

But since they cannot defeat us militarily they turn to propaganda which they are, in fact, very good at. They may not know much about science or technology, but they definitely know a thing or two about how to turn western-left heads, which they learned, in part, at the feet of their Soviet advisers. The Arabs were told, "Look, you cannot go screaming for blood and demanding that the Jews get pushed into the sea if you expect western sympathies. What you need to do is frame your blood-lust and theocratic hatred toward Jews as a matter of "social justice" and "national liberation" and then you will have the West eating out of your hand."

And that is precisely what they did.

They may not know much about technology, but their propagandists certainly know how to lie and they lie very well.

When some 19 year old Jewish kid at UC Irvine or San Francisco State University holds up a fist and calls for "intifada" in solidarity with his brothers and sisters "of color" he is denying his own indigeneity to the Land of Israel, while quite literally calling for the murder of his Jewish relatives on that land.

The only way that such a kid could do so is because he was steeped in the Big Lie for too many years.

The Big Lie, of course, is that the Land of Israel is Arab land and that the Jews are usurpers.

History, as an academic field of knowledge, tells us otherwise.

Israeli Diversity and Western-Left Hypocrisy

Israel is the most ethnically and ideologically diverse country throughout that entire part of the world and, far and away, the most democratic. This is why western-left contempt for Israel is, itself, heinously contemptible. It reveals, in glaring relief, the enormous hypocrisy of a political movement that claims to stand for social justice and anti-racism, yet does no such thing.

Calls for justice among Democrats and "progressives" (regressives?) are mired in a form of racism that is almost universal among them and, yet, so ephemeral that they cannot perceive it within themselves. Humanitarian racism has run amok within the western-left. They conceive of Arabs and Africans as lesser human beings who, much like children, are not really responsible for their own behavior. Instead it is the fault of the parents and, in the progressive imagination, that means white people.

It is in this way that they turn their own value-system upside-down.

In the name of "resistance against colonialism" they end up supporting the most regressive political movements in the world today. They gladly throw garbage at Israel, but are reluctant to breathe a word against ISIS or Hamas. They have turned the word "Zionist" into an epithet even as they coddle regimes and admire cultures that consign women to the condition of chattel, throw Gay people from tall buildings or hang them from cranes, burn down thousands of Christian churches while persecuting and murdering adherents to that faith and teach their children that Jews are descendants of orangutans and swine.

And they do this even as Israel welcomes Toby Cohen into the IDF as its first female Nigerian officer.

The progressive-left hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance around Israel is profound.

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Michael L.
{Also published at The Jewish Press.}Temple Mount activist, Yehuda Glick, was elected to the Knesset and already there are concerns about World War III.
Glick got shot up and almost murdered in 2014 for the temerity to suggest that non-Muslims - even Jews - should be allowed to pray at the holiest site of the Jewish people.

Although Israel has repeatedly reassured the Palestinians and Arab states that it will not alter the status quo at the flashpoint site, Glick is confident he will find allies in the Knesset to support his cause.And asked whether he would tone down his lobbying if asked to do so for security reasons, he said there would be “no reasoning” behind such a request and maintained: “I will continue advocating.”

I think that I am going to call the guy up and thank him for his bravery and essential human decency.

If there is one issue that genuinely pisses me off it is Israeli policy concerning the Temple Mount. How is it possible that someone like Moshe Dayan could be so naive as to think that handing over the holiest site of the Jewish people to Arabs would somehow placate them?

It did the exact opposite as should have been entirely predictable.

Instead of being grateful to the Jewish people for their generosity, the Arabs use the Temple Mount as a club and Israel allows this despite the fact that it need not do so.

They have even made it a rule that no member of the Knesset shall be allowed to go up there.

I do not know what to say. The stupidity is just breathtaking.

By preventing non-Muslims from praying on the Temple Mount Israel sends a message to the world that Jerusalem is not really a Jewish town. Maintaining the "status quo" is the same as maintaining the idea that Jerusalem actually belongs to the Arabs and, therefore, Jews are nothing more than land thieves.

The problem that Jews have with the Temple Mount is the same problem that Jews have with the notion of "Israeli Occupation of the West Bank." If Israel is illegally occupying someone else's land, including the Temple Mount, and thus Jerusalem, in general, then we might as well pack it in and say goodbye.

If Jewish people think that we stole land from others and if they think that we should not even be allowed to pray at the site of the Temples then what is the point of Israel? I understand that much of the rabbinate, for theological reasons, believe that Jews should not go up to the Holy of Holies, period, but that is not the point.

The point is the question of Jewish sovereignty.

Some critics warn that new MK Glick, a symbol of sought-for change at the Temple Mount, could spell trouble.

“Yehuda Glick’s joining the Knesset would create even more pressure on the government to change the status quo arrangements on the Temple Mount,” said Dr. Motti Inbari, an associate professor of religion at UNC Pembroke and expert on the Jewish Temple Mount movements, speaking days before Glick was sworn in. “I am doubtful that he can change anything, but the two appointments of [presumptive defense minister Avigdor] Liberman and Glick send a message of a harder line by the Israeli government, and I will not be surprised if the Muslims would see it a provocation against them and counterreact.

In my opinion, Israel should actually and honestly be provocative.

The truth, of course, is that the very last thing that Israel has been on this question is provocative. On the contrary, when it comes to the Temple Mount Israel does little more than cringe.

Instead of doing the right thing in regards the Temple Mount, which is to say democratize it, successive Israeli governments prefer to bow to the irrational demands of their tormentors. Instead of standing up for its own alleged values, Israel allows Muslim bigots to decide who may, or who may not, be allowed to pray on a bit of land within the ancient capital of the Jewish people.

I want to thank Nachman for alerting me to this Facebook page because this is old-school stuff.

Classical straight-forward anti-Semitism, which that link goes to, has become more rare in recent decades as hypocritical left-leaning, BDS, anti-Semitic anti-Zionism has grown in popularity. They both claim to stand for social justice. Even the Nazis claimed to stand for social justice in the sense that they honestly believed that the Jews are evil and that sparing the world from us is in the best interest of all humanity.

Saint Gabriel Belostoksky Гавриил Белостокский Born in family of pious Christians Peter and Anastasia, baptized him with the name of Saint Archangel Gabriel in the temple of the Holy Dormition in Zabludovskii Monastery.

One day mother left from house to bring lunch to her husband, jewish tenant use opportunity to abduct little Gabriel as soon was feast of Passover. He secretly tuck him in Bialystok lock up in basement where they torment little Gabriel, occult jews crucified him, with sharp instruments stabbed his body to release blood after nine days of torture Gabriel died in his six year of life.

Occult jews throw Gabriel body into a field at the edge of the forest near the village Zverkov in expectation that dogs will eat his body on their misery the dogs who found body they didn’t rend it but on their barking villagers found the body of a martyr.

Occult jews where found and punished and people deeply moved by such atrocities buried body of martyred baby in church graveyard after many miracles on his grave church pronounce him in saint. Today his incorruptible body lying in the St. Nicholas Cathedral in Bialystok his day of celebration is 20 April (3 May at Julian calendar)

"Occult jews"?

Now, this is great stuff because it is right out of the Middle Ages. The guy who runs this Facebook page - bless his soul - is spreading the word that Jews like to torture and murder innocent Christian children and is doing so straight out of the fourteenth-century.

Jewish people in the West have not heard much of this kind of wacky and dangerous jibber-jabber in quite awhile.

So, Nachman has been banging on Facebook's door and this is the response that he received:

Thanks for your feedback

Thank you for taking the time to report something that you feel may violate our Community Standards.

Reports like yours are an important part of making Facebook a safe and welcoming environment.

We reviewed the Page you reported for displaying hate speech and found it doesn't violate our Community Standards. (Emphasis my own.)

Please let us know if you see anything else that concerns you. If you want us to look at something specific on a Page, be sure to report the content (ex: photo), not the entire Page. We want to keep Facebook safe and welcoming for everyone.

The ignorance and callousness of the digirati could hardly be more obvious.

What Facebook is telling us is that even the most classic forms of Medieval anti-Semitism do not violate their community standards.

Sunday, May 22, 2016

I do not know how many of you are familiar with Michael Burd and Alan Freedman's radio show, Nothing Left, from J-AIR out of Melbourne, but you definitely should be.

I say this, of course, because they have been foolish enough to put me on the show a few times and therefore my ego impels me to write this.

The thing of it is, J-AIR is a niche station and Nothing Left is a niche show within a niche station.

Our little band of pro-Israel / pro-Jewish bloggers and commenters definitely know what this is like.

The Tradition of the "Little Magazine"

We are provoking small-scale conversations among one another in much the same way that the so-called "little magazines" in New York City throughout the twentieth-century did so.

Nothing Left is a part of our greater international network and we are the "little magazines" of our day.

In fact, Jonathan Tobin, of Commentary has spoken with the guys on-air at Nothing Left and Commentary is one of the few "little magazines" still in operation.

{Somebody beat The New Republic to something resembling death once Marty Peretz retired, made aliyah, and was no longer their to defend the magazine. The Nation, of course, while derived from the noble Abolitionist tradition, has clearly lost its way and tends toward sympathy with political Islam. And, needless to say, Mother Jones staggers on across the Bay, but does anyone care?}

The analysts that Michael and Alan have attracted to the show represent a "who's who" of the pro-Israel / pro-Jewish community from all over the world.

I tell you guys, it is an impressive list and I only touched on some of the people that I am familiar with. But, as you can see, these are all formidable individuals within the Jewish community and any of the pro-Israel political blogs would be proud to gather such an esteemed line-up.

Those of you familiar with this blog are probably familiar with Pat Condell. Pat, I believe, has about had it with political Islam, if not Islam, more generally. Speaking as a member of a tiny ethnic minority that was persecuted for thirteen long centuries under the boot of Arab-Muslim imperial rule, it is not difficult for me to see why. Condell's contribution, however, is not an interview, but a piece concerning the latest Gaza war.

Professor Alan Johnson

The discussion with Professor Alan Johnson was, however, brilliant. I was not familiar with the gentleman but he is a political theorist, the editor of Fathom, and a current member of the UK Labour Party.

He is, thus, in a perfect position to discuss the manifold ways that Labour is ripping itself to pieces over anti-Semitism... as those of us from "across the pond" break out the popcorn.

Burd and Johnson discussed "open warfare" within the UK Labour party, the heinous former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, and his equally heinous colleague Naz Shah who suggested that the Jews of Israel should be transplanted into the middle of the United States someplace, perhaps Nebraska.

They discussed holocaust inversion, the fact of rampant anti-Semitism within the British Muslim community and the exportation of classical anti-Semitic tropes into contemporary anti-Zionist discourse through that community and their allies on the progressive-left.

MK Sharren Haskel

What was equally interesting to me, however, is Michael's discussion with Israeli MK Sharren Haskel. Haskel is the youngest seated member of Likud and perhaps the youngest member of the Knesset, period.

With luck she represents the coming leadership within Israel, itself, if not merely within Likud. She has got something very fresh and very straightforward, while maintaining both compassion and clarity of thought on the issues... or so I thought as I listened through her segment.

She was a combat soldier in the IDF during Intifada Number 2 and experienced the pain of the field on "my body and on my soul."

She is working on Israeli / Arab-Muslim diplomatic relations in the Middle East and actually sounds rather optimistic. This is hardly surprising because she cannot enter into conversations in the hopes of easing tensions within a spirit of pessimism, now can she?

She talks with Michael about the ways hard-left groups within Israel undermine Israeli well-being and the fact that Israeli Arab MKs stood with murderers in Intifada Number 3, the Car Ramming / Stabbing / Knife Intifada. She also supports a potential new Israeli law that would curb the ability of traitors within the Knesset to support violence against Jews.

She is friendly to the rights of Gay people and even supports the use of medical cannabis. In fact, although she claims not to use that substance, she is the Chairman for the Medical Cannabis Caucus in the Knesset.

"Medical Cannabis Caucus in the Knesset"?

Just roll that around your tongue a few times!

Most importantly, however, she recognizes that the Arab-Muslim war against the Jews in the Middle East is not a land dispute, but a cultural-religious conflict by a much larger hostile and foreign national group (the aggressors from the Arabian peninsula) versus the much smaller indigenous population from Judea and Samaria.

This is a concept that we need to bang into the heads of western authorities.

Isi Leibler

The last thing that I want to do is give Isi Leibler short-shrift.

The guy was a primary leader within the Australian Jewish community for decades who made aliyah and is now writing for various outlets, including the Jerusalem Post.

Leibler drops in to Nothing Left on a regular basis and he is one of those old-school, no-nonsense Jews who want for the Jewish people, not to mention the Jewish State, to stand up strong for itself.

His conversation with Michael revolved around the fact that that there is no other country in the world whose very existence is called into question other than Israel; this, despite the fact that, as Leibler says, "we are the most successful resurrection of a nation that has ever taken place."

Nothing Left and Michael Burd and Alan Freedman should be congratulated for airing their 100th show this Tuesday.

In 1883, Anthony Chabot, a successful hydraulic engineer and provider of water to the City of Oakland, agreed to fund an 8-inch telescope. Mr. Chabot subsequently funded the new observatory as well, which opened in downtown Oakland on November 24th of the same year.

Leah is a classic old telescope.

It is a refractor, which means that it is the kind that Galileo looked through.

He was not the first and he did not invent the instrument.

Ship captains had them before he did.

But he was the first, in any meaningful way, to point one toward the heavens.

Some Jewish leaders in the San Francisco Bay Area, with a tad of my encouragement, were (or are) considering meeting with San Francisco State University President Les Wong to discuss our community's concerns over hostility toward Jews and the Jewish State at that university.

SFSU has been among the most anti-Semitic universities in the United States for many years, but I am sure that the administration does not much appreciate me pointing out the obvious.

But there is simply no getting around the fact that when students gather on the Malcolm X Student Plaza and cry out "Intifada! Intifada! Long live the Intifada!" that they are calling for the murder of Jewish people.

President Wong seems to be OK with this.

In fact, just last year he praised the General Union of Palestine Students as representing what the university is all about.

Now, I presume that SFSU has no particular desire to drive away Jews.

On the contrary, I am certain that they see their political mission as representing the very highest moral ideals as derived from the political Enlightenment of the 17th century, through American Abolitionism, 19th century Progressivism, the New Deal, the Civil Rights Movement, the Anti-War Movement, GBLT Rights, Environmentalism, and so forth.

What I fail to understand is how calling for the murder of the Jews of the Middle East, if not Jews, more generally, fits into the larger pattern of an ongoing western desire for social justice?

The only way that it makes sense for the president of a significant American university to pat Arab kids - who want to see dead Jews - on the head is if he agrees that those Jews have it coming.

It would be something akin to President Wong telling the world that the Ku Klux Klan represents the very best of SFSU when they call for the lynching of Black people.

It's a disgrace.

The only explanation that makes sense is that the SFSU administration honestly does believe that ramming people at bus stops in Jerusalem, or chasing old Jewish ladies down the streets in Haifa with hand-axes, is a matter of righteous resistance.

I do not know if the people who I have been in contact with, each of whom represent an aspect of Bay Area Jewish leadership, will move forward to let Wong know that there is nothing progressive about the call for the murder of Jews, but I am beginning to have my doubts.

They will either dump the idea or go forward with me or without me.

I do not care if they go forward without me, so long as they go forward.

They may very well decide to go forward without me because I did, in fact, refer to SFSU as among the most racist universities in the country because - ya know - it is among the most racist universities in the country.

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

The latest episode, number 99 from yesterday, May 17, features Michael Burd behind the microphone, Mike Lumish filling in for Alan Freedman with a brief editorial on Dershowitz and Obama, as well as conversations with Prof Alan Johnson, Pat Condell, MK Sharren Haskel of Israel, writer and Jewish leader Isi Leibler in Jersualem and guest host Mary Werther.

My segment, which is only about 5 minutes long, begins around the 3:45 mark.

You guys should check out this material, not just my stuff, of course, but Nothing Left, in general.

One of the great things about Nothing Left is that Burd and Freedman have managed to attract the biggest hitters within the pro-Israel / pro-Jewish community.

Monday, May 16, 2016

While plenty of others have laid out the know-it-all attitude of President Obama as conveyed by the New York Times Magazine profile of his communications director Ben Rhodes, there's another angle I would like to cover. To get at my angle, it would help to look at Nicholas Kristof's column from last week about Obama's responses to the Ebola crisis in 2014 and the Zika crisis now. During the Ebola crisis, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) predicted that without intervention, the epidemic in Liberia could mushroom to 1.4 million cases. An epidemic of that scale would have been a vastly greater threat to us than a handful of medical experts traveling there, coming back, and monitoring themselves during the potential incubation period for the disease.

However, the balance of risks did not stop the self-appointed experts like Phyllis Schlafly, Donald Trump, and the Republicans in Congress from declaring that America had to be "kept safe" by stopping all flights to Africa. In actuality, the intervention by western medical crews brought and end to the Ebola epidemic in western Africa and there was not a single fatality from western-contracted Ebola. What this episode demonstrates is that there is such a thing as expertise and that those crafted Obama's response, presumably from the CDC, knew what they were doing. However, until the epidemic was contained, to the self-appointed experts, the public health community was simply what one might call "The Blob."

Just as there is such a thing as expertise in public health, there is also such a thing as expertise in international relations. Unfortunately, as David Samuels' profile of Ben Rhodes demonstrates, Obama's attitude towards international-relations expertise is the same of the self-appointed experts' attitude towards public-health expertise. There are legitimate reasons to challenge the community of experts. For instance it would be useful to call attention to facts that most experts ignore and there is nothing inherently wrong with having values (that is, view of what ought to be) that differ from those of most experts. However, there is a difference between an experts' professional assessment (that is, view of what is) and the application of that expert's values (what ought to be). Spurning the experts' advice, in effect dismissing their analysis because you dislike their conclusions, and treating their assessments of what is as if they were their assessments of what ought to be, creates a substantial risk for disaster. That is what Obama and Rhodes have done.

Sunday, May 15, 2016

French FM Ayrault says the peace conference being planned by France is important as it can help stop the advance of the Islamic State terror group in the region.

“France has no vested interest, but is deeply convinced that if we don’t want to let the ideas of the Islamic State group prosper in this region, we must do something,” Ayrault tells reporters.

It is often difficult to know where the anti-Semitic anti-Zionism ends and the stupidity begins.

The French represent around 66 million people, whereas the Jews of Israel represent about one-tenth that number. But I certainly applaud the healthy inclination of French Jews to get the hell out of that country.

I recommend the US, Australia, or Israel.

I do not know what the French obsession is, but I would very much prefer it if they would leave the Jewish people alone.

The European and American peace processes have nothing to do with peace, if history is any guide, which I clearly think that it is.

They don't care about Jewish lives and they most certainly do not care about Israeli Arab lives.

However, their politicians seem very much to care about a form of politics that will see more of us dead.

When the EU and France and Barack Obama continue to seek an imposition upon Israel, without requesting any meaningful concessions from the Arabs, it means more blood.

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

It’s time the world — and Jews themselves — identify the People of the Book as indigenous people. At least, that’s the opinion of indigenous rights activist Ryan Bellerose of Alberta, Canada. He recently returned from his second trip to the Holy Land where he filmed a video supporting the concept for the Israeli advocacy group StandWithUs.

I have visited all the major sacred sites, and many historical sites that reinforce the indigenous nature of the Jewish people to their ancestral land. This has helped me in being a pro-Israel advocate.

I write about the commonalities of indigenous struggles, so going to Israel and seeing a place where indigenous people have managed to gain self determination is massive for me. I believe very strongly that in order for me to expect people to listen to me about my peoples’ struggles, I must listen to them and stand with them in theirs.

We have to make the case - not for the least reason because it is historically accurate - that the Jewish people are the indigenous people of Israel... from the river to the sea.

We are not the first people to inhabit that land, but unless you can find some Jebusite out there someplace, we are the only ones left.

I mean, for G-d's sake, it's been something close to around 3,500 years.

How much more established can a people be?

Jewish kids at university do not know their own history because their Jewish professors whitewash the history of Jews under Arab-Muslim imperial rule.

Those who follow Israel Thrives know that I have been in discussion with Ollie Benn of San Francisco Hillel. I do not know if he will read this or not, but one thing that I should have said to him is that the Jewish kids should join the indigenous groups on campus.

One of the problems with the Jewish Left is that they concede the main point to their harassers.

I do not know what Benn thinks - and my impression is that he will be a fine and strong leader - but obsequiousness is a general trend within the Jewish Left who want nothing so much as to be nice so that others might be nice toward us.

That is, the Jewish Left tends to suggest that, yes, the Jewish people are occupiers of Arab lands... but, y'know, we mean well...

Saturday, May 7, 2016

The Syrian “refugee” problem that has exploded on the world scene is, I believe, a harbinger of things to come. The conditions for mass emigration present in Syria are to a large degree present in all Muslim majority nations.

What follows is an objective, honest, factual, politically incorrect analysis that will allow us to correctly understand what we can expect, with the millions of “refugees” that are coming and will continue to come from Muslim countries.

They are coming from Muslim majority countries because these countries are in the worst groups when, economic development, civil strife, external strife (wars), local groups fighting each other, prejudice, superstition, disenfranchisement of women and little or no educational opportunity, are considered. The Arab World Competitiveness Report shows some indications of the above failings.

In short they are failed states.

Professor Huntington stated, in his book, “Clash of Civilizations and The Remaking of World Order”, that civilization conflicts are “particularly prevalent between Muslims and non Muslims”. He identifies “the bloody borders” between Islamic and non Islamic Civilizations. An article by Joseph Wouk, a few years ago, stated that 95% of the world’s conflicts involve a Muslim population. A cursory examination of the world’s conflicts today, would show that the Muslim population is involved in the large majority of these conflicts. A Washington Post article pointed out that unemployment in Muslim majority countries, particularly among younger people, remains high. The article also stated that growth per capita income among Arab countries lagged behind China, Latin America and Africa.

So we can expect massive migrations of people from these “failed economies”.

The question is, how to apportion these refugees among the rest of the world.

One algorithm that we could apply is to assume 20% of the 1.6 billion Muslims would like to emigrate out of their native country. These 320 million people could then be apportioned with each country absorbing the percentage of these refugees as their percentage of world population. (7 billion people) We will call this the Refugee Integration Index (RII).

So the United States with a population of 300 million should accept sufficient Muslims to equal the percentage of 300 million divided by 7 billion. This amounts to almost 14 million people.

This algorithm, although simple, disregards the very important fact that, the refugees do not want to resettle in the Muslim majority countries, such as Indonesia, Pakistan, or Bangladesh. For example, when was the last time you saw advertised a full week all expense trip to Bangladesh? The sum of the populations of the top twenty three nations with the biggest Muslim populations, adds up to 1.35 billion people, which should be subtracted from the world’s population of 7 billion. This list contains, in addition to the above mentioned countries, such desirable immigrant destinations as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, etc.

The Social Progress Index published in Oxford, measures the capacity of a society to meet the basic needs of it’s inhabitants. They are also, least welcoming for immigrants. Some of the countries in those groups are: China, India,Thailand, Russia, Poland and Vietnam. Their population totals another 2.85 billion people, for whom “refugees” are not desirous of joining. That figure added to the 1.35 billion totals 4.2 billion.

Four billion two hundred million people who live in countries from where the people either want to leave or to where “refugees” do not want to go! This figure subtracted from the 7 billion gives 2.8 billion, as the possible population of the potentially welcoming countries.

The respective RII figures for Germany, Great Britain and France are, 3%,2%.2% .

The fact that these figures are much lower than the actual figures may indicate why integration has failed in these countries.

The proportion of residents who identify as Muslims in Great Britain is approximately 4% , which is double the RII calculated. The Muslim population of 6% in Germany is also double the calculated RII. This is planned to rise much more according to the stated policies of Chancellor Angela Merkel.

France with an RII of 2 %, presently contains over 7% of its population who identify as Muslims.

These countries and other countries in Europe follow the Python theory of immigration. A Python eats an entire animal and then slowly digests it. Unfortunately , this Python process does not seem to be working in Europe.

A BBC poll showed that 45% of Muslims residing in Britain support hate preachers. 11% support Jihad against the West.

Employment rate among Pakistani and Bangladeshi residents is 49% compared to 73% among the general public.

In France, despite the repeated denials by politicians of “no go zones”. There are numerous areas where the police prefer not to enter. One neighborhood is Seine Saint -Denis, where 40% of the youths younger than 25, are jobless. In any country, with any group, that type of situation leads to crime, riots and civil disobedience. Of course, everybody should remember the Charlie Hebdo terrorist massacre, the Bartaclan Theatre massacre and the Kosher supermarket massacre.

In Germany, the recent New Years Eve civil disobedience of riots, sexually molesting women, rapes, and general mayhem,has ignited some “right” groups to stop immigration of any “refugees”.

Just as a Python has to ensure that the swallowed animal doesn't destroy the host by eating it from the inside (a crocodile for example,) so must the host nations ensure that the “refugees” do not become a permanent “entitlement” culture and engage in civil disobedience, etc.

The assimilation (Python digesting) phenomenon simply has not occurred!

According to Daniel Greenfield, a New York writer focusing on radical Islam:

The Turks who have been coming to Germany since the 1950's now constitute over three million, with over 2.5 million as German citizens. Yet 80% of these families, still receive “state benefits”. (Hartz IV Empfanger). The “Turks” in Germany have a birth rate of 5% compared to the null growth rate of “native” Germans.

The recent terrorist attacks in Belgium show, most definitely, that “integration” into the “native” population can not be achieved. Some commentaries about the million Belgium Muslims (around 10% of the population), shows that,75% hold strict Islamist views and two thirds view Islamic law as more important than national law. The Washington Post reports, that a Belgium ministry official says, that between 20% to 30 % of the prison population are Muslims. Abaaoud who helped plan the Paris attacks met Abdeslam in jail. Abdeslam was captured in Belgium. Abdeslam's brother, who blew himself in the Paris attacks, also was in a Belgium prison. Those figures show the breakdown of the “python” theory of immigration. The family, friends and neighborhood were all complicit in hiding the suspect of the French terrorist attacks , for four months. Belgium has produced the largest number of Muslims who have gone to Iraq and Syria to join the Islamic State. The correlation to antisemitism is that the first Islamic State attack in Europe (2014) was at the Jewish Museum in Brussels.

What about the United States?The great “melting pot”, the “assimilation machine”, the country that makes people feel that they are, first and foremost, Americans. Using the new ratio of population divided by 2.8 billion gives an RII of 11% for the United States and a population of 32 million Muslims.

The Pew Organization released some startling data on the support among Muslims worldwide for “making sharia the official law in their country”. The figures for Bangladesh were 82%, Iraq 91%,Pakistan 84%, and Nigeria , the “rape” capital of the world, 71%. Of course, Saudi Arabia already has Sharia as the official law of the land.

It is foolish to think that this group will change their minds after living in the United States.

Another result from the Pew Organization shows 31% of U.S. Muslims see a “conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society.” A poll commissioned by the Center for Security Policy states that, 51% of Muslims living in America believe, “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Sharia.”

Twenty nine percent of males under 45 believe that violence against America is justified in order to make Sharia the law of the land. According to the N.Y.U. Center for the Study of Asian American Health, there are approximately 30,000 Bangladeshi in New York City. Their per capita income is $10,479 compared to the New York average of $22,402. New Yorkers who live in “poverty” constitute 21% of the population, compared to 31% of the Bangladeshi.

Of course, there is the “elephant in the room”. Namely, the high correlation of anti semitic crimes with the increase in the Muslim population. France, Belgium and Sweden are three of the more glaring examples of this phenomena. A recent report by the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-SE), stated “Islamic education curriculum in the United States project hostility toward Israel and distort the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Let Dr. Martin Luthor King remind you that “when people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti semitism.”

In summary, whether because of cultural and/or religion, Muslim immigrants have failed to integrate, to modify or to adopt a new national identity.

The Muslim majority countries will continue to decline. We can expect many more millions of “refugees” from these countries. The “accepting” countries will experience an exponential decrease in their quality of life.

What could be done to prepare or prevent this civilization changing action? The answer to that question should be, but presently isn't, the major objective of every government.

The phrase “teachable moment” is quite meaningful for the university and my leadership team following an April 6 Hillel event featuring Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat on our campus.

I regret that the student event was disrupted by a group of protesters. We care deeply about teaching and learning, and we take pride in linking learning with action. We must learn and be better. Going forward, I am empowering my administration to take more swift and decisive action when faced with similar circumstances. We will not allow another speaker to be drowned out and shouted down.

In a discussion with Mayor Barkat, by phone, I apologized and invited him back to S.F. State so that we might learn more about the complex and challenging issues he faces as mayor on a daily basis. He accepted my apology and invitation, the timing of which will depend on his next trip to the U.S.

I have spent considerable time thinking about the event and what it means for the future of our university. University campuses are not quiet spaces, and I would argue that they shouldn’t be. But the noise should come from sessions where tough and difficult ideas are confronted in a spirit of learning and respect. Bullhorns don’t do it, and the idea of silencing and preventing the marketplace of ideas is both sad and disturbing.

I am clear in my conversations with our Jewish students that they are welcome here, that we will work hard to ensure S.F. State is a safe space and that we will be proud of them when they graduate. This will be a strong and consistent message to any student — we must be a campus where all students, regardless of their backgrounds, feel welcome and supported.

When I spoke with our Jewish students I heard repeated concerns about the climate on our campus. Their experiences, and the experiences of other student groups, reveal a large gap between S.F. State’s institutional values and the lived experiences of many of our students. One cannot learn in the context of fear, nor can learning prosper without exposure to the world of ideas. The Hillel event signaled that we have much to learn in this regard. But we will get better. I am committed to that goal.

Social justice isn’t just a phrase we use to describe our behavior and attitudes. It is a standard, a critical value that is intimately connected to academic freedom, First Amendment obligations and a commitment to student learning in a safe and respectful context. The conflicts that have arisen on our campus are an extension of conflicts that exist in the larger world. Many have been around for decades. We may not be able to directly impact the tone of the larger conflicts, but we can address how we treat one another and how these conflicts play out in our small corner of the world.

The most problematic issue from my vantage point as president is the perception that speech is not valued or protected at S.F. State. We need to do more to show that the perception is not reality. To that end, and to better prepare for the future, we are taking a number of important actions immediately:

We are conducting a full investigation of the incident, and the students who disrupted the event have been notified that the incident will be adjudicated through the student conduct process; consequences will be meted out commensurate with findings.

We will adopt a more assertive stance when enforcing S.F. State’s Time, Place and Manner Policy while preserving the rights of individuals to engage in free speech. Failure to comply with directives of university officials may result in disciplinary action under the Standards for Student Conduct; the university is also willing to take immediate action in accordance with California Penal Code Section 403 PC.

We will also pursue the following longer-term actions:

The Time, Place and Manner Policy will be reviewed and revised, and a standard operating procedures manual developed in support of the policy.

New student orientation will include information on the Time, Place and Manner Policy as well as the First Amendment, so that students are fully informed about their rights and responsibilities around civil discourse.

Training for administrators and student leaders will be implemented in August 2016.

We will provide education and capacity building for S.F. State students to advance a climate of equity and inclusion, engage in civil discourse and respectful cross-cultural dialogue.

The S.F. State community has a reputation for speaking its mind quite openly, and often loudly. But true dialogue means more than being louder and faster to speak. My favorite phrase to tell students is “you are here so that you can learn how to own your own mind.” And that means more than listening to and supporting ideas that you feel good about or those that are comfortable and easy.

Owning your own mind is difficult work; it means engaging with challenging and often threatening ideas. This is not always easy, but if teaching and learning are important, then listening to and engaging with the controversial is an essential element of an education.

At S.F. State, we recognize that we will all need to continually work together to create and foster a campus environment where reason and mutual respect among individuals and groups guide our expression and interaction.

From the comments:

Cadance M.

No consequence for the disruptors?

This seems to be Pres Wong’s admission that there were no consequences for those responsible for the disruptions. And as long as there are no consequences, these embarrassments will continue.

Les Wong is on record as saying, regarding the group that organized the disruption, “I want to offer my personal congratulations to the student leadership of GUPS. They have been an inspiration for me. And they have helped me when I have to tell other community groups to mind their own business. GUPS is the very purpose of this great university.”

In my view, Wong's remarks concerning GUPS from about a year ago are considerably worse than the behavior of his ill-mannered and ill-educated students.When the idiots at GUPS stand in Malcolm X Plaza, or before that insidious mural of Edward Said, screeching for an intifada, they are calling directly and specifically for the murder of Jewish people.Thus when Wong says that "GUPS is the very purpose of this great university” it is a true kick in the head to Jews everywhere.If I were Barkat I would never return to that campus.

Sonia Melnikova-RaichToo General and Vague I am glad to see President Les Wong’s op-ed but I am disappointed by the careful and “politically correct” generalities about freedom of speech rather than explicit public apologies to Mayor Barkat and the Jewish students whose meeting was so rudely and unceremoniously ruined in front of nonchalant university security guards. Not a word on whether the hooligans are going to be made responsible for their ugly action or whether security may need to be tightened in the future, especially at a time when openly anti-Semitic attacks on campuses have become commonplace.

Wong suggested that the Jew Hating savages in GUPS might face consequences after investigation.I would not hold my breath.

The Apollo 7 crew was commanded by Walter M. Schirra, with Command Module Pilot Donn F. Eisele, and Lunar Module Pilot R. Walter Cunningham. Their mission was Apollo's 'C' mission, an 11-day Earth-orbital test flight to check out the redesigned Block II Apollo Command/Service Module (CSM) with a crew on board. It was the first launch of a Saturn IB vehicle to put a crew into space, the first three-person American space mission, and the first live TV broadcast from an American spacecraft.

What can anyone say?

As far as I am concerned the 1960s US Space Program represents the best of humanity.

This is the Apollo VII patch:

An old college buddy of mine, Jon Lee, is the only friend that I have in the world that likewise has a mission patch.

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Those of you who follow the ongoing Lumish Fiasco of Life know about the Passover Curse.

Ever since Laurie and I started holding regular Passover Seders G-d has come down each year in his Mighty Wrath to kick my ass!

It's not my fault.

It's His!

Every year that we hold a Passover Seder I get my ass kicked by G-d.

It has become a Lumish Family tradition.

Every year, around March, I start fretting about Passover and every Passover - either just the week prior or just days later - G-d hits me in the head.

The other year a skunk sprayed our dog, Georgy-Peorgy, the day before Passover and Laurie let the mutt into our house, thus stinking up the entire joint. It was awful! It is one thing to catch a drift of skunk as your driving down the road, but it is another thing entirely to actually have it in your house the day before Passover.

We managed to clean out our joint before our friends arrived.

And then, just a few years ago, I got bit by a dog and my hand blew up like a balloon. I conducted the entire Seder with my hand held above my heart, according to doctors' instructions, much to the amusement and satisfaction of our guests.

And this year I got into a fight with a cupboard door and the cupboard door won!

None of this is tragic in a Greek sense, but I still have to wonder.

Passover is my favorite holiday.

We usually pack them in and have a good time and I sit at the head of the table.

It is my one day a year to hold court, I suppose.

And every year I tell them that Passover is about freedom and, thus, about enjoying yourself.

Barack Obama claims that when jihadis fly planes into the World Trade Center, or slaughter innocent people in San Bernardino while crying out "Alahu Akbar!" that this has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.

George W. Bush famously referred to Islam as "the religion of peace."

Both men, naturally, were lying through their teeth.

But one way that people judge Islamic terrorism is to deny that it has anything whatsoever to do with Islam. I was back east awhile ago and met with friends. I was talking to one of my buddies over a beer about those fun-filled fellahs in ISIS. And I said something like, "Well, political Islam is a real problem. It results in wide-scale violence all around the world."

And he said, "This is not about Islam. It is about terrorism. Not Islamic terrorism, but anybody terrorism."

I looked at him with my mouth hanging open and blinked.

"Excuse me," I said, "but it was not Mormons who killed 3,000 people in New York on 9/11. It was not Buddhists who killed those people in Paris at the offices of Charlie Hebdo and the kosher grocery store. It is not Rosicrucians who are destroying antiquities throughout the Middle East."

The Pamela Geller Way (Islam is Islam)

Turkish Prime Minister Ergodan famously said, and I paraphrase, that Islam is Islam. There is no extremist Islam and there is no moderate Islam. There is only Islam.

Pamela Geller, unless she has had a change of heart recently, would agree, as would her friend and partner, Robert Spencer. I like Geller very much because she is both smart and brave. However, if Barack Obama thinks that "violent extremism" has nothing to do with Islam, Geller believes that violent aggression is absolutely embedded in Islam.

She has a perfectly reasonable case because the Koran does, in fact, call upon devout Muslims to kill the infidel if he refuses submission. There is simply no getting around this hard fact. This is not speculative. It is not a matter of interpretation. It is right there in black and white for all to see.

Some, of course, would argue that the Bible is at least as violent as the Quran, if not considerably more so. The difference - as anyone with two brain cells to rub together can tell you - is that violence in the Bible is descriptive while calls for violence in the Quran are prescriptive.

The Quran quite literally calls for violence against non-Muslims.

The Michael Lumish Way (or, really, the Daniel Pipes' Way)

Daniel Pipes - who is considered, among many on the Left, to be a hard-right "Islamophobe" but who is actually a very serious scholar of Middle East Studies - argues that the way to defeat radical Islam is through moderate Islam.

Geller and Spencer are correct that calls for violence are embedded directly within the Quran and the Hadiths, however most Muslims are not particularly interested. Most Muslims, like most Christians and most Jews, do not heed the stupidity embedded in our respective faiths and want, more than anything, the freedom to pursue their own interests.

In the United States this is certainly true. In Europe it is different and in the Arab-Muslim Middle East it is entirely different. In the United States, at least in my experience, native-born Muslims are Americans first, just as I am an American first. We may have different faiths, or no faith whatsoever, but we speak the same language and tend to share similar values.

Pipes's idea, if I understand him correctly, is that the way to defeat political Islam is with regular Muslims. For those of you who may arch an eye-brow, remember that it was the ordinary folk backing the Egyptian military, with Obama's disapproval, that took down the Muslim Brotherhood in that country. And the Brotherhood, let us not forget, is the Big Daddy of Islamist organizations.

The Brotherhood is the father of both al-Qaeda and Hamas and, yet, Obama supported their bid for power in Egypt. He sent Hillary to encourage their smooth transition into office after winning a fraudulent election wherein Christian Copts were often kept from voting at the point of a rifle.

Barack Obama on the so-called "Arab Spring" (May 19, 2011):

"There are times in the course of history when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat."

The "Arab Spring" was the brutal rise of political Islam in the Middle East and this is what Obama compares the Civil Rights Movement to?

The Fundamental Argument:

The progressive movement, and the activist base of the Democratic Party, creates and supports venues that demonize and defame the Jewish state, thereby also creating hatred toward the Jewish people.

Such venues include political journals, such as, but not limited to, Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, and the UK Guardian, numerous universities throughout the United States and Europe, various NGOs with an anti-Israel agenda, and the entire progressive-left movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction (BDS) the Jewish people of the state of Israel.

These venues and organizations do not generally criticize Israel, but dehumanize that country.

For this reason, among others, the progressive movement, and the activist base of the Democratic Party, undermines the well-being and safety of Jews around the world, sometimes resulting in violence toward us.

Therefore, as a matter of common sense and basic human decency, Jews should leave the progressive movement and the Democratic Party as we seek to build alternative political structures that are not home to toxic anti-Semitic anti-Zionists, who would see us robbed of self-determination and self-defense.

What You Can't Discuss:

This is a partial list of taboo topics within progressive-left venues around the Arab-Israel conflict. You cannot discuss this material because it undermines the "Palestinian narrative" of perpetual victimhood. This narrative is a club used by the Arab and Muslim enemies of Israel, along with their western progressive allies, to delegitimize that country in preparation for its eventual dissolution.

1) The centuries of Jewish dhimmitude under the boot of Islamic imperialism.

2) The recent construction of Palestinian identity, its connection to Soviet Cold War politics, and how this is an Arab people with a Roman name that refers to Greeks.

3) Arab and Palestinian Koranically-based racism as the fundamental source of the conflict.

4) The ways in which contemporary progressive anti-Zionism serves as a cloak for gross anti-Semitism.

5) The Palestinian theft and appropriation of Jewish history.

6) "Pallywood."

7) The historical connections between the Nazis, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Palestinian national movement.

8) The perpetual refusal of the Palestinian-Arabs to accept a state for themselves in peace next to the Jewish one.

9) The progressive portrayal of terrorists as those fighting a righteous war of "resistance."

10) The Arab-Palestinian indoctrination of children with Jew hatred.

11) Human rights violations against women, children, and Gay people in the Muslim Middle East.

12) The fact that violent Jihadis call themselves "Jihadis" and claim to love death above life.

This is only a partial list, so please let us know the many more that we are missing.

Quote of the Whenever:

It is not that most progressives are anti-Semitic. They aren't. It's that they don't get it, they don't care, and they very much want you to shut the fuck up. - Michael Lumish